The primary duty of the President of the United States is to protect our people. In fact, it is the principal duty of a limited federal government. They must ensure that our military and all of our security agencies are strong and capable.

We must support our military with the best training, equipment, technology and infrastructure necessary to keep them in a position to win. We must also provide our men and women in uniform, our veterans and their families with the benefits they deserve for their tremendous sacrifice. These heroes have served us. We must never forget to serve them.

Illegal immigration has only exacerbated illegal activity, such as the horrendous crimes of drug smuggling and human trafficking. Illegal immigrants who are repeat offenders are harder to track, making it difficult for law enforcement to prevent crime. Further, weak borders have caused a compounding problem of terrorists assimilating with illegal immigrants, crossing the border with them and entering the U.S.

We must secure our borders, enforce our laws and promote the existing path to citizenship. Protecting our nations sovereignty should be a paramount concern of those elected to lead us, not an afterthought or a reaction once the problem becomes even worse. Further, taking a stand on the issue does not mean one lacks compassion, but instead, that one respects the rule of law and the importance of not becoming a lawless nation.

The massive debt caused by liberal policies will be passed onto our children and grandchildren if we do not stop it. They will be stuck with the tab for the government takeover of health care, industry bailouts and failed stimulus packages. They will be the ones approached with outstretched palms by the Chinese to pay back the billions upon billions we owe them. Each generation of Americans should seek to leave behind a better and more prosperous nation for the next, not saddle them with debt from reckless spending.

I have served as an executive of several major corporations. When times were tough and money was tight, I asked our employees to cut back drastically, and explained why it was necessary, and they did. We have all had to make difficult decisions in our own household or at our work place. Serious but responsible belt tightening can save businesses, and it can also save our country with the right leadership.

America is a land blessed with abundant natural resources and the capability of the people to obtain them. From the oil-rich states of Louisiana and Alaska to the mighty dams along rivers across the states, the options for many forms of energy are real and plenty. Still, liberals continue to perpetuate the misunderstanding that the high energy consumption of a thriving nation and conservation of our precious planet are at odds with one another. Because they have perpetuated such a myth, liberals have forced excessive environmental regulations that have stifled our domestic energy production, and instead, forced American consumers to rely far too heavily upon foreign oil.

Alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear and hydroelectric are certainly part of the solution long term, but private industry must take the lead for true innovation to be a bigger part of our future energy needs. If alternative energy sources are found to be inexpensive, safe and plentiful, then American consumers will choose to purchase them. Let the markets decide which forms of energy fuel our cars, heat our homes and which ones will keep America working.

America has long been a beacon of prosperity throughout the world. The American Dream has been attained by those who were willing to think, work and sacrifice to achieve it. Each dream was different, but each dream was made possible due to the freedoms this country provides.

The role of the federal government should be to encourage economic growth by ensuring conditions that will allow businesses to thrive, not just survive. That means less legislation, less regulation, lower taxes and business-friendly policies.

President Obama and the liberals in Congress have dismantled the free market health care system and replaced it with health care deform. They have passed measures that compromise the sacred patient-doctor relationship, eliminate patient choice, stick a bureaucrat in the examining room, ration care and do nothing to limit frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care. In all of these provisions, they made health care more expensive and less accessible for American families they claimed to protect.

Under the guise of making health care a right for all people, President Obama and the liberals in Congress instead extended the tentacles of government, expanding their control and diminishing patients rights. They have also made it more difficult and more expensive for doctors to practice medicine, including specialized practitioners who are desperately needed to save lives. In reality, their attempts at reforming the system have actually deformed it.

Entitlements Click on the link to the left to read the full statement.

Big government enthusiasts designed social programs to provide a financial safety net, but, in turn, dependency on the government for the most vulnerable in society became an expected entitlement. Decades since their inception, far too many Americans have shifted their expectations from government assistance to entitlement. Too many people have exchanged their freedom for a false sense of security that these programs are supposed to provide.

Unfortunately, this has not only been to the sociological detriment of America, but also to its economic detriment. Simply, ever-expanding social programs are compromising the current and future financial stability of this great country. The federal government has imposed expensive and often counter-productive social and welfare programs on the states and the people. It is time to admit the mistakes, and get the federal government out of the way. This will allow states, cities, churches, charities and businesses to offer a helping hand instead of a handout where they live. People closest to the problems are the best ones to solve the problems effectively.

Eliminating the burdens of cumbersome federal regulations would provide an immediate boost for our weakened economy. It would signal to businesses and investors that the federal government intends to get out of the business of over regulating. Where regulations are required the states will do their job. Consumers and investors do not need nanny-state federal regulations to save them from themselves.

Education is the key to unlocking a prosperous future. At the heart of education should always be the students. Unfortunately, education has become weighed down with administration that has shifted the focus from educating students to maintaining an excessive level of bureaucracy through expanded unionization and regulation. Its time to unbundle education from the federal government down to the local level.

critical component of improving education in our country is to decentralize the federal governments control over it. Children are best served when the teachers, parents and principals are making the day-to-day decisions, coupled with the leadership of local municipalities, school boards and states. What might work for a third grader in Oklahoma might not work for a third grader in Hawaii.

Unbundling education means putting kids first. It means rewarding those teachers who enrich the lives of their students, and it means holding those accountable who do not. It means putting students before union interests, and it means keeping their development paramount. Unbundling education means localizing education- making those on the ground responsible for the teaching and learning that happens in our local communities. Unbundling education means offering parents choices for their children to create a truly competitive educational system.

Our Founding Fathers recognized a higher power in the formation of this nation when they said in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

It was no accident that in some of our earlier years as a free and independent nation that our leaders added In God We Trust to all of our currency. Americas moral foundation does not need to be rewritten. It needs to be respected and taught to our children and grandchildren. It is the basis for our concept of freedom.

You cannot help but like this man and his positions. His touching statement...and powerful...about his own fight with cancer and how Obama Care would have doomed him to death hit home with so many people, including myself and my own fight with cancer. What he said was absolutely true and would have also applied to me.

And his winning of the Florida straw poll, though not a game winner, was certainly a surprise to many and improved his chances.

Therefore, I thought it worthwhile to post his actual positions. Read them...see what you think of them.

Herman Cain is pro-life. He has repeatedly stated that life begins at conception, and that if he was elected President, he would sign legislation to protect the sanctity of life. He supports the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and has noted that the organization was started by someone with the stated goal of lowering the number of African-American children.

“The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I dont support onerous legislation thats going to restrict peoples rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

Blitzer: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should

Cain: Yes”

Not a great answer.

13
posted on 09/26/2011 3:12:15 PM PDT
by smith288
(Peace at all costs gives you tyranny free of charge)

Herman Cain takes a strong stand, and sometimes controversial stand on abortion issues, in his 2004 Georgia senate run he said abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest.

On the 2nd Amenement, I have found this...and he should put both abortion and 2nd amendment statements on his web site which I am emailing him and encouraging him to do.

On April 28, 2011 in Rochester New Hamshire, Herman Cain spoke at a campaign event and discussed his views on the second amendment. When asked, he states that concealed carry laws should be dealt with at the state level.

On May 1, 2011 Herman Cain spoke at the NRA American Values Leadership Conference. He stated during the speech that the second amendment was one of the things that the founding fathers got right and that it should not be infringed upon in any way.

Apparently spome people are using a Wolf Blitzer interview where he indicated that 2nd amendment laws of any kind could only be passed at the state level to imply he is weak on the 2nd amendment. He clarified that to mean conceal carry, etc.

Illegal immigration has only exacerbated illegal activity, such as the horrendous crimes of drug smuggling and human trafficking. Illegal immigrants who are repeat offenders are harder to track, making it difficult for law enforcement to prevent crime. Further, weak borders have caused a compounding problem of terrorists assimilating with illegal immigrants, crossing the border with them and entering the U.S. We must secure our borders, enforce our laws and promote the existing path to citizenship. Protecting our nations sovereignty should be a paramount concern of those elected to lead us, not an afterthought or a reaction once the problem becomes even worse. Further, taking a stand on the issue does not mean one lacks compassion, but instead, that one respects the rule of law and the importance of not becoming a lawless nation.

His positions are almost exactly the same as Perry's. No wonder he is my second choice should Perry falter, either way I think a Perry/Cain or Cain/Perry is in order.

18
posted on 09/26/2011 3:21:22 PM PDT
by normy
(Don't take it personally, just take it seriously.)

The first time I heard Herman sub for Neal Boortz, I thought, “This guy needs to run for President!” I was thrilled when he tossed his hat into the ring.

I’ve vetted the other candidates and for one reason or another, none of them do it for me.

As time goes on, I notice more and more folks are starting to take notice of Herman and want to learn more about him. After winning the FL straw poll, he’s getting even more attention. Don’cha know the MSM, who have gone out of their way to ignore him, are just hatin’ having to talk about him the past couple of days? hee!!

Mark Levin: And what about man-made global warming? Do you think something should be quote unquote done about that?

Herman Cain: Man-made global warming is poppycock. I hope I can say that on your show.

Mark Levin: You know you can.

Herman Cain: In other words, I dont believe in it.

Look, if people look at the real data, the climate had varied ever since weve known that the planet is here. And we know that those scientists who tried to concoct the science to say we had a hockey stick global warming and they were busted because they manipulated the data.

27
posted on 09/26/2011 4:06:09 PM PDT
by Jeff Head
(Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Hope you're doing well with your new steel "bumper."

When asked, he states that concealed carry laws should be dealt with at the state level.

Unfortunately that's exactly where the states start infringing on the 2nd Amendment as noted in recent stories about Illinois and New Jersey. A strong statement in support of National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 would be a great deal-sealer for Cain.

37
posted on 09/26/2011 6:19:53 PM PDT
by DTogo
(High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)

TP: Mr. Cain, you recently came under fire for your comments about the kind of people you would appoint to your cabinet. Would you be opposed to appointing an openly gay but qualified person to be in your cabinet?

CAIN: Nope, not at all. I wouldnt have a problem with that at all. I just want people who are qualified, I want them to believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. So yep, I dont have a problem with appointing an openly gay person. Because theyre not going to try to put sharia law in our laws.

Scott Toomey: Well, now, uh, Ken Mehlman, R. Clarke Cooper, Meghan McCain, Mary Cheney and I wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the log cabin, taking The Party(tm) by surprise -- not only by surprise, but totally unarmed!

“Unfortunately that’s exactly where the states start infringing on the 2nd Amendment as noted in recent stories about Illinois and New Jersey.”

But the converse is true as well. The Second Amendment sets the bottom threshold for gun liberties. States like AZ, AK, and VA are redefining the upper threshold. By relying on a national standard, you hold everyone to the same level of mediocrity.

Politics changes over time. Once you’ve established that it’s a Federal decision on concealed carry, what do you do when a later administration decides to rewrite the same law to make it more restrictive? That’s pretty much what happend with drinking laws. The Feds decided that the minimum age to drink would be 21, and lo and behold it was. In spite of several states having less restrictive laws before that.

Now that you nationalize concealed carry laws, what about states like WV that issue handgun permits to those who are 18 or NH who doesn’t set a minimum age? Do they have to change their laws to comply with the national standard, which would presumably be 21?

Very slippery slope. I think Mr. Cain is right. It’s a state level decision.

39
posted on 09/26/2011 7:29:46 PM PDT
by RKBA Democrat
(Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)

I also agree that the States are the ones who primarily should deal with the issue.

For example, we do not allow felons to have firearms. I personally believe that once a felon has paid their debt, then all of his rights should be restored. In doing so, I believe murders and rapists and those terribly violent criminals should have much harsher penalties...ie. more death penalties and life imprisonments for them which would mean they would not get their right to bear arms back (if executed or kept for life).

Anyhow, I have urged Herman Cain to come out with a more definitive 2nd amendment statemnt for his web site that is as clear as some of his other statements to the press or in meetings. Same on abortion.

I believe he is strong in both cases based on his comments, but I would like to see "official" position statements on them just the same.

42
posted on 09/27/2011 7:05:57 AM PDT
by Jeff Head
(Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))

You and I are on the same page. I don't mind the states "dealing with the issue" so long as that does not entail additional regulation or infringement on that "God-given, unalienable right" above and beyond what's already written in the Constitution.

Herman Cain wouldn't want states to interpret/regulate the 13th~15th Amendments, so why allow Jim Crow to encroach on and infringe the 2nd?

Would Mrs. Cain agree that the 19th Amendment is dependent on which state she resides in, or that she needs a permit to exercise it?

It would be nice to see Herman Cain speak out clearly and strongly on this issue, among others.

43
posted on 09/27/2011 7:53:33 AM PDT
by DTogo
(High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)

“It’s a Right not a priviledge, and Rights shouldn’t be subject to any pre-condition no matter what state you live in or happen to be travelling through.”

Agreed. The question is how we get to there from where we are right now? I think we’re better off reclaiming our gun liberties on a state by state basis. You don’t want to put all of your eggs in one basket.

44
posted on 09/27/2011 5:46:04 PM PDT
by RKBA Democrat
(Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)

I've read the blitzer interview. I have also listened to many of his other statements, before and since.

I believe his opinion/stance is being mischaracterized by the interview. I have written his campaign and asked that they set up an issue statement on gun control to clarify his positions and make sure that what he has said at other times is clear.

Given his own stance, I believe he would favor Reciprocity and believe the incoming House and Senate would make it happen.

We already have the second part of your statements going on around the country in those states. Look at Illinois and others. But even there they have not been wholly successful.

I believe Cain would appoint judges who would be strict constitutionalists according to original intent, and if he had appointments to make they would favor making the current court even more conservative and more inclined to follow the constitution and not make new laws or allow "current thinking", or other nations to sway them.

Having said all of that, I believe Cain needs to clarify his stance on the 2nd amendment and gun control and have asked him to do so. Many others should ask him to do the same.

48
posted on 09/28/2011 9:57:41 AM PDT
by Jeff Head
(Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))

Herman Cain is 200% pro 2nd Amendment. What he said in the Blitzer interview (mentioned on that link you posted) was taken to mean that he believed states could overrule the 2nd amendment. He does not believe that and he explains here:

(at the 10:17 mark) I strongly support the 2nd amendment. I said that some things should be left up to the states, for example, if the states want to require background checks, let the states decide that. But I did not in ANY WAY mean states had a right to restrict access to owning firearms. So that was the misunderstanding.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOUF1Hug0JI

You realize, of course, that if Cain is elected, then you can forget about National Reciprocity. You can also forget about owning a gun in any state in the future which has a large number of Democrat voters because Cain will not interfere.

In contrast stand the facts of what he actually said, in context:

BLITZER: All right. Lets talk about gun control. Do you support any gun control?

CAIN: I support the Second Amendment.

BLITZER: So you dont  so whats the answer on gun control?

CAIN: The answer on gun control is I support strong  strongly support the Second Amendment. I dont support, you know, onerous legislation thats going to restrict peoples rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

BLITZER: Should states or local governments be allowed to control the gun situation? Or should...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.